Mental health scientists will surely add a new term the next time they gather: Trumpophobia, the fear of all things pertaining to America’s new president.

Trumpophobia is not confined to the usual set of social justice warriors, either. Supposedly reasoned and experienced scientists have become unhinged over the past week, as Trump vigorously began fulfilling campaign promises.

For example, USA Today reports that a nonprofit group of “scientists” moved the hands of the the Doomsday Clock closer to midnight on Thursday amid increasing worries over nuclear weapons and climate change.

Each year, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, a nonprofit that sets the clock, decides whether the events of the previous year pushed humanity closer or further from destruction. The symbolic clock is now two-and-a-half minutes from midnight, the closest it’s been to midnight since 1953, when the hydrogen bomb was first tested. Scientists blamed a cocktail of threats ranging from dangerous political rhetoric to the potential of nuclear threat as the catalyst for moving the clock closer towards doomsday.

“This year’s Clock deliberations felt more urgent than usual…as trusted sources of information came under attack, fake news was on the rise, and words were used by a President-elect of the United States in cavalier and often reckless ways to address the twin threats of nuclear weapons and climate change,” Rachel Bronson, the executive director and publisher of Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, said in a statement.

Typically, I avoid using “scare quotes” around words. However, I was curious about the actual scientific degrees possessed by Bronson. In my quest for her biography, I uncovered that she is a long-time environmental justice warrior (as denoted in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists).

Her scientific degrees are in….Political Science and history, as specified in her LinkedIn profile.

Where is the real science? I have multiple degrees in geology and chemistry. I have spent countless hours in laboratories, published papers on research that generated hard data, and have had to use the scientific theory to defend my hypotheses. This is the type of activity associated with scientists.

I am angry that the elite media, so keen to keep with their narratives about President Trump, failed to do some basic background research on a key organizer.

The article notes that “The decision is made by the board of the nonprofit Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ along with input from a board of sponsors which includes 15 Nobel Laureates.” Given that Obama now holds a Nobel Peace Prize, the term “Nobel Laureate” holds a bit less prestige.

March organizers, on the event’s website, said it serves as “a starting point to take a stand for science in politics.” Organizers launched a Facebook page on Tuesday that’s already compiled 123,000 likes while its Twitter account amassed more than 150,000 followers.

The event’s date, organizers said, will be announced in the coming days. Marches in other parts of the country and Europe also are being planned. The group’s mission statement is set to come out on Monday.

As a scientist, I offer these queries for further study, in relationship to this event:

What will be the definition of a scientist, when counting the attendees?

To be fair it did move from higher to a low of 3 minutes during Obama’s 8 years. I don’t care enough to follow the reasons.

But to also be realistic, it has moved around in single digit minutes since the start of the cold war. So it’s pretty meaningless. What’s the difference between 5 minutes and 2.5 minutes over 60+ years? No doom. Just a silly clock placard.

History will show that President Obama’s “Iran Deal” undermined the fundamental soundness of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by having the Security Council allow a signing state to ignore the provisions and continue to enrich.

A scientist practices science. If a scientist with a dozen Ph.Ds and 30 years experience in the lab stops using the scientific method, it is no longer science. The resumes of these or any scientist are irrelevant if they are not practicing science. Actually, the resumes are irrelevant if they are using the scientific method, in that it’s the evidence, the findings, that matter. A college degree is the more efficient way to gain the needed knowledge, but is not the only way to learn the scientific method; it is necessary only to get a job. Albert Einstein is an example. He earned a math & science teaching diploma, but his Ph.D was awarded, not earned.

I guess what I’m saying is that looking at the scientists isn’t relevant when they aren’t practicing science. It’s propaganda, a marketing technique in which they hopefully legitimize their agenda by wrapping it up in the robes of venerable science. They also don the priest’s robe when that’s the flavor of false legitimacy in need. ‘Reverend’ Al Sharpton, anyone?

He attended no classes and did no work at the university that awarded his Ph.D. That he knew as much as any Ph.D in physics is not in question. I mentioned Einstein as an example of the autodidact, that attending college is efficient, but not necessary.

We are always one minute away from catastrophic anthropogenic climate change or utopia. Human perception is limited to the scientific logical domain, which makes prophecies the stuff of fantasy and twilight.

I’m sorry, but for anyone like me who is old enough to remember the Cold War, even just the suggestion that we are closer to Armageddon than anytime since 1953 is just ludicrous. Anyone with a sense of history should point and laugh at the silly pseudo-scientists who make such a claim.

I REMEMBER IN LAW SCHOOL, explaining to a classmate that despite her fears, the “Doomsday” clock is just a prop, and its advance or retreat reflects nothing more than the decision of a group of people with an agenda. … This came as a shock to her, though to her credit after a moment’s thought she realized that of course it was true.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has been notorious as a tool of lefty propaganda for decades. I first heard of it in the ’70s, in the writings of the late Dr Petr Beckmann, who did not have kind things to say about it.